A WOMAN settled a defamation claim for €20,000 after she bought a bottle of wine in a Dublin supermarket, walked down the road to a different shop, left the wine on a shelf and was asked by a staff member if she paid for it.

The woman purchased something in the shop and as she was leaving, she picked up the bottle of wine which she had bought in the supermarket.

The wine was left on a shelf in the off-licence section of the store.

A staff member, assuming it belonged to their store, then asked if she had paid for the wine.

The woman then claimed for defamation and argued she was being accused of stealing.

The case was recently settled outside of court as it was argued the shopkeeper should have seen the woman had left the wine on the shelf and that it was hers.

This case is an example of the extreme challenges facing small businesses, according to Jonathan Hehir, managing director at Insuremyhouse.ie.

The leading broker has warned that retailers and pubs are facing closure during 2018 because insurance costs are being driven up by spurious claims.

Mr Hehir said: “It is a diving issue and a lying issue, and by that I mean people literally diving on the floor or pretending to trip over something, or pretending to steal items from the store in order to accuse the shop assistant or owner of defamation when questioned.

“Unfortunately, 2018 could be pretty bleak for the affected businesses unless the Government act fast and introduce harsher penalties and jail time for these unscrupulous fraudsters,” he added.

Independent.ie previously revealed how youths who were refused service after being accused of stealing from shops in Dublin city centre have been issuing solicitors letters threatening to sue for defamation.

In one of the letters, obtained by Independent.ie, the teenager claims the shop owner accused him of previously stealing from the shop and refused to serve him.

The shop owner said he refused to serve the teenager as he claims he has previously stolen chocolate bars from the shop.

The letter outlined how the teenager intended to sue for defamation unless he received proposals for compensation within seven days – due to being subjected to “defamation, embarrassment and humiliation”.

An inept criminal who agreed to stay away from a man whose home he has repeatedly broken into has had a 12 month suspended sentence activated after being found hiding behind a cardboard box in the same injured party's storage room last April.

Christopher McCarthy (29), of no fixed abode but with an address at Ashbury, Roscrea, Co Tipperary, was described as a “homeless traveller” and one of 18 children with a long standing alcohol problem and 133 previous convictions.

He had pleaded guilty at Nenagh Circuit Criminal Court to criminal damage and obstruction of a garda at the home of a Mr Cole, Grove Villas in Roscrea and was jailed for five years. He had broken into the same injured party's home on two previous occasions in May 2013.

McCarthy successfully appealed his sentence in June 2016 and was accordingly given a three year sentence with the final 12 months suspended on condition he behave, stay away from the injured party as well as Green Street, Grove Street and the Crescent in Roscrea. He had undertaken to be so bound.

However, McCarthy had his 12 month suspended sentence activated in full today after entering the same injured party's home last April where he was found hiding behind a cardboard box by gardaí.

The original sentencing judge noted that it was McCarthy's first time in the Circuit Court for sentence and that he was “not a very clever criminal”. He also noted that McCarthy was on lock up for 23 hours a day while in custody on remand, that he was genuine in his contrition and genuine in having some kind of insight into the suffering he had caused to the injured party Mr. Cole.

The sentencing judge was mindful of what the gardaí had said about McCarthy namely, that he was somebody who caused the gardaí no trouble except when he was drinking. The prosecuting garda had given evidence to the effect that McCarthy had a very difficult background and wrongly believed that he was still welcome at his family home. However there was no room for him there.

Activating his suspended sentence today, Mr Justice George Birmingham said it was “absolutely clear” that the chance that had been given to McCarthy had not been taken. He said McCarthy's breach of the conditions was “egregious” involving the same injured party and entry into the same dwelling.

Mr Justice Birmingham, who sat with Mr Justice John Edwards and Mr Justice John Hedigan, said the Court of Appeal was “left with no option” but to activate McCarthy's suspended sentence and “activate it in full”.

It was backdated to October 20, the date on which an eight month District Court sentence for trespass, the triggering offence, expired.

I guess they gave him every chance to cop on and are punishing him now for fairly to do so.

How do you prove it's a setup? She buys the bottle elsewhere, puts it down in the off licence section, presumably with other wine bottles and then picks it up to go. CCTV presumably proves her story and the only way to prove essentially entrapment is for her to admit to it.

Well it did and insurance companies aren't known to throw money at people unless they feel they might be further exposed defending the action. So unless it's someone pulling a fast one in the insurance company, there has to be a detail not mentioned which explains why they were happy to settle.

A WOMAN settled a defamation claim for €20,000 after she bought a bottle of wine in a Dublin supermarket, walked down the road to a different shop, left the wine on a shelf and was asked by a staff member if she paid for it.

The woman purchased something in the shop and as she was leaving, she picked up the bottle of wine which she had bought in the supermarket.

The wine was left on a shelf in the off-licence section of the store.

A staff member, assuming it belonged to their store, then asked if she had paid for the wine.

The woman then claimed for defamation and argued she was being accused of stealing.

The case was recently settled outside of court as it was argued the shopkeeper should have seen the woman had left the wine on the shelf and that it was hers.

This case is an example of the extreme challenges facing small businesses, according to Jonathan Hehir, managing director at Insuremyhouse.ie.

The leading broker has warned that retailers and pubs are facing closure during 2018 because insurance costs are being driven up by spurious claims.

Mr Hehir said: “It is a diving issue and a lying issue, and by that I mean people literally diving on the floor or pretending to trip over something, or pretending to steal items from the store in order to accuse the shop assistant or owner of defamation when questioned.

“Unfortunately, 2018 could be pretty bleak for the affected businesses unless the Government act fast and introduce harsher penalties and jail time for these unscrupulous fraudsters,” he added.

Independent.ie previously revealed how youths who were refused service after being accused of stealing from shops in Dublin city centre have been issuing solicitors letters threatening to sue for defamation.

In one of the letters, obtained by Independent.ie, the teenager claims the shop owner accused him of previously stealing from the shop and refused to serve him.

The shop owner said he refused to serve the teenager as he claims he has previously stolen chocolate bars from the shop.

The letter outlined how the teenager intended to sue for defamation unless he received proposals for compensation within seven days – due to being subjected to “defamation, embarrassment and humiliation”.

No proceedings were ever issued.

The horrible bitch. I hope karma bites her back badly. According to an insurance friend of mine, the practice she undertook is commonplace amongst theiving animals like her.

A WOMAN settled a defamation claim for €20,000 after she bought a bottle of wine in a Dublin supermarket, walked down the road to a different shop, left the wine on a shelf and was asked by a staff member if she paid for it.

The woman purchased something in the shop and as she was leaving, she picked up the bottle of wine which she had bought in the supermarket.

The wine was left on a shelf in the off-licence section of the store.

A staff member, assuming it belonged to their store, then asked if she had paid for the wine.

The woman then claimed for defamation and argued she was being accused of stealing.

The case was recently settled outside of court as it was argued the shopkeeper should have seen the woman had left the wine on the shelf and that it was hers.

This case is an example of the extreme challenges facing small businesses, according to Jonathan Hehir, managing director at Insuremyhouse.ie.

The leading broker has warned that retailers and pubs are facing closure during 2018 because insurance costs are being driven up by spurious claims.

Mr Hehir said: “It is a diving issue and a lying issue, and by that I mean people literally diving on the floor or pretending to trip over something, or pretending to steal items from the store in order to accuse the shop assistant or owner of defamation when questioned.

“Unfortunately, 2018 could be pretty bleak for the affected businesses unless the Government act fast and introduce harsher penalties and jail time for these unscrupulous fraudsters,” he added.

Independent.ie previously revealed how youths who were refused service after being accused of stealing from shops in Dublin city centre have been issuing solicitors letters threatening to sue for defamation.

In one of the letters, obtained by Independent.ie, the teenager claims the shop owner accused him of previously stealing from the shop and refused to serve him.

The shop owner said he refused to serve the teenager as he claims he has previously stolen chocolate bars from the shop.

The letter outlined how the teenager intended to sue for defamation unless he received proposals for compensation within seven days – due to being subjected to “defamation, embarrassment and humiliation”.

No proceedings were ever issued.

The horrible bitch. I hope karma bites her back badly. According to an insurance friend of mine, the practice she undertook is commonplace amongst theiving animals like her.

If you can see somebody placing a bottle down and waiting for the store detectives/security guards to find them, it'll look dodge as fúck.

You could try it on 'naturally' in loads of places, just need the timing to be right in one.

What's your angle?

I'm guessing it is why settle it

Bingo. You don't give somebody €20k for no reason.

Of course not, they have a very good reason - in case they get a crazy judge on a bad day. It’s easier sometimes and often cheaper just to pay go away money. The system stinks

The idea that insurance companies would fight tooth and nail to protect our premiums and the only thing holding them back from challenging clearly fraudulent claims is that they are worried they will be fked to the tune of £20 gazzillion by a mad judge for a knacker's cat's trauma is insane. Presumably you also think the CEOs are on minimum wage which they give to orphans.

I have some bad news for you, insurance companies are run by lazy incompetent scumbags who hire lazy incompetent lawyers because both can then get paid handsomely for next to no work (and it doesn't get easier than settling) and we pay for it.

probably none but insurer would be allowing for legal fees on both side could easily be 5k on each side plus the award. could easily reach 20k.

dealt with a case where claimant was award 10k by injuries board rejected the award. went to court insurer fought the case and won total cost of legal fees just under 11k

That both sides costs?

Unfortunately, PIAB are woefully poor at assessing injuries, meaning you'd normally be negligent to recommend a client accept the offer. Very few insurers will offer a proper sum of damages until sued. Wastes a lot of money.

probably none but insurer would be allowing for legal fees on both side could easily be 5k on each side plus the award. could easily reach 20k.

dealt with a case where claimant was award 10k by injuries board rejected the award. went to court insurer fought the case and won total cost of legal fees just under 11k

That both sides costs?

Unfortunately, PIAB are woefully poor at assessing injuries, meaning you'd normally be negligent to recommend a client accept the offer. Very few insurers will offer a proper sum of damages until sued. Wastes a lot of money.

am allowing 10k for the combined legal fees as you said yourself

It does not cost €20k to brief a solicitor and a junior for a Circuit Court case that will take less than two hours. Indeed, it probably costs less than half that.

insurers will have to pay both sides costs. in my experience these case are very hard to defend. they can't dispute that they stopped the lady so it just comes down to how much the judge is going to award. won't go through PIAB as no injuries so straight to court.

probably none but insurer would be allowing for legal fees on both side could easily be 5k on each side plus the award. could easily reach 20k.

dealt with a case where claimant was award 10k by injuries board rejected the award. went to court insurer fought the case and won total cost of legal fees just under 11k

That both sides costs?

Unfortunately, PIAB are woefully poor at assessing injuries, meaning you'd normally be negligent to recommend a client accept the offer. Very few insurers will offer a proper sum of damages until sued. Wastes a lot of money.

This is the level of gullibility we have to deal with in our judges. A woman was awarded € 28 k in compo for injuries received in a traffic accident. It just happened to be the 6th traffic accident the woman had claimed compo for, and miracle of miracles she received the same injuries in each accident ! I have serious doubts about the particular judges powers of analysis, and certainly his understanding of statistics.

This is the level of gullibility we have to deal with in our judges. A woman was awarded € 28 k in compo for injuries received in a traffic accident. It just happened to be the 6th traffic accident the woman had claimed compo for, and miracle of miracles she received the same injuries in each accident ! I have serious doubts about the particular judges powers of analysis, and certainly his understanding of statistics.